1 East and West: Cultural Dissonance and the “Great Schism of 1054” Margaret Trenchard-Smith, Loyola Marymount University Perception is an overwhelming force. Collective perceptions can be contra-factual. The memories of individuals, of institutions, often magnify the inconsequential, distort or omit. A failure of memory can be total, through accident or deliberate oblivion. Shared recollections and the narratives they form shape perceptions. Yet even when these things are faulty, they can have as much force as if they were sound—just as the effects of a rumor can be as damaging when false as when founded in fact.1 The “Great Schism of 1054” is perceived by many to be the momentous event that resulted in the permanent sundering of the “Western” Roman Catholic and “Eastern” Orthodox branches of Christendom.2 Factually, however, there is a problem with this perception, since it can plausibly be argued on technical and practical grounds (and has been argued by scholars like Francis Dvornik and Steven Runciman) that no schism occurred in 1054—certainly not the “Great Schism.”3 The perception of schism came about through cultural dissonance and alienation East and West which grew until at last the divorce became reality. When precisely that happened, however, is unclear. If not in 1054, when did the formal schism of the Great Church occur? Did it occur? From whose perspective, and by what criteria? There is no scholarly consensus on these questions.4 Please bear in mind that this paper has been written by an historian, not a theologian. These were the circumstances of the so-called “Great Schism of 1054.” Early that year, tensions East and West prompted Pope Leo IX to charge Humbert, Cardinal of Silva Candida, 2 and a papal delegation to travel to Constantinople to negotiate with its Patriarch, Michael Keroularios (Cerularius).5 In the imperial capital, relations swiftly deteriorated, and on July 16th, 1054, Cardinal Humbert left a bull of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia.6 Sub-deacons of the church ran after the papal legates with the bull, begging them to take it back. The document was cast to the pavement.7 When it was retrieved and delivered, Patriarch Michael Keroularios retaliated in kind. Days later, he publicly burned a copy of the bull and anathematized Cardinal Humbert and the other legates.8 Schism could not technically have resulted from these actions. Pope Leo IX had died earlier in the year, in mid-April.9 The authority of the legates terminated with his death; the bull was nullified.10 In addition, the objects of excommunication were personal—on the one hand, the Patriarch Michael Keroularios and a few collateral victims of this wrangle, on the other, Cardinal Humbert and the papal legates.11 In other words, these were not general excommunications involving the entire clergy and laity on either side.12 Furthermore, among the charges made against the Church in the East was that it had omitted the Filioque formula from the Nicene Creed—a charge that Rome has long since admitted was erroneous.13 (More will be said on the Filioque shortly.) Michael Keroularios appealed for the support of the other Eastern Patriarchs—of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Peter III of Antioch’s response to the irate Patriarch of Constantinople was that, apart from the Filioque, these were matters of relative indifference (¢di£fora), mere misunderstandings.14 How then, historically, did matters arrive at the point of the perceived sundering of the Church? This is a great question, which cannot be fully addressed. What I can say, however, is that this was essentially a process of gradual cultural estrangement, one in which the alienation of religious sensibilities played a prominent, but not the only, role. Consider that 3 one cannot easily separate secular and religious matters in the medieval period. This clash of cultures, East and West, entailed administrative, political, linguistic, cultural, ritual, theological, ecclesial and doctrinal differences. Of these differences, language was the most decisive; of the many religious issues involved, the Filioque and the question of papal primacy were lasting.15 To place “1054” in context, it will be necessary to take the more than thousand- year history of the East Roman, or “Byzantine,” Empire from its inception to its end. DIVISION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: The clash began in Late Antiquity, when Christianity was a persecuted minority religion within the Roman Empire under the emperor Diocletian. To make the unwieldy empire easier to rule, Diocletian bisected the Mediterranean, separating the pars occidentalis (the West) from the pars orientalis (the East) in governance and administration and setting up a “rule of four,” the Tetrarchy. Satisfied with his work, Diocletian retired voluntarily in 305 (he wanted to grow cabbages). Civil war followed, out of which the first Christian Emperor Constantine the Great emerged sole ruler in 324. Second only in significance to Constantine’s very conversion to Christianity was his dedication in 330 of the former Greek colony of Byzantium as the imperial capital of East Rome. Initially called Nša `Rèmh, “New Rome” and later, after him, Constantinople, the city created a center of gravity for East Rome, which would counterbalance and soon eclipse the West. The divergent development of the Roman Empire East and West was confirmed at the end of the century, when in 395 Theodosius the Great divided it between his sons Arcadius and Honorius. In the following, the fifth, century, the West would break up into Germanic successor kingdoms, but East Rome, Byzantium, would endure. 4 THE PATRIARCHATES: The Church, however, was one; in the West, it was the only institution of the former pars occidentalis to survive intact.16 Yet the notion persisted that the oikumene (o„koumšnh), the lands inhabited by Christians, and the empire, were meant to be one and the same.17 This belief had determined the Episcopal structure of the Church and the jurisdiction of its highest bishops, the Patriarchs. Francis Dvornik identified two principles that governed the relationship of the bishops of the great imperial cities. One was the “principle of apostolicity.”18 The founding of the Christian community in Rome by Saint Peter meant that the Bishop of Rome was accorded precedence and especial honor.19 The “principle of accommodation” required the leadership of the Church to conform to the political and administrative divisions of the Roman Empire.20 This principle underlay canons which elevated Constantinople and gave its Patriarch a status second in rank to the Pope.21 The Patriarchal Sees were: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. This Episcopal arrangement is known as the Pentarchy, the “rule of five” Patriarchs. The Arab Muslim invasions of the mid-seventh century, by removing from East Rome its provinces of Egypt, Syria and Palestine, affected the functioning of the Pentarchy. The Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem persisted after the invasions, but diminished and under Islamic control.22 Previously, there had been competition between the various Patriarchs, as much between the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch as between Constantinople and Rome. With the removal of three eastern Sees from the empire in the seventh century: “The rivalry between the Patriarchs became simply the rivalry between Rome and Constantinople.”23 This, in brief, is the background to later strife over papal primacy. 5 LANGUAGE: Mutual incomprehension is fundamental to cultural dissonance. Greek was the chief language of the Church in East Rome, as Latin was in the West. By 600, few persons were bilingual in Latin and Greek. Christians had forgotten one another’s languages. Naturally, this had a determining effect on the culture of the Church East and West. Like the binary relationship that developed between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople after Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were taken into the Islamic Caliphate, so did the consequent marginalization of the Coptic and Syriac languages place Latin and Greek in stark contrast. Christians in the “Greek East” and “Latin West” read disparate authorities—different Church Fathers, Doctors and Confessors of the Church. Central to Byzantine theology were the Cappadocian Fathers: Saints Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa and Basil the Great; core patristic authorities read in the West were Saints Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome. Separate bodies of liturgy and canon law evolved; and at the popular level, of hagiography, saints’ lives. Distinctive church cultures developed. For centuries, these divergences were accepted, and shared Christian identity maintained; in large part because of the emerging spiritual principle of oikonomia (o„konom…a) – Christian charity, benevolence and tolerance of acceptable difference.24 The Church was one, as was its doctrine, but the inflections thereof diverged over time East and West. Christians were pondering the same mysteries, but differently, because of the shaping effect of language. It is a commonplace to contrast the “legalistic and authoritarian” character of concrete, practical Latin to the mystical, “individualistic and philosophical” character of subtle, sinuous Greek.25 While these linguistic differences can be overstated, they did generate conceptual variations.26 These would increasingly contribute to misunderstandings over time, as in the matter of the Filioque. 6 FILIOQUE: A digression is necessary here to explain the term Filioque. The Visigoths, like most other Germanic groups that had taken over the West, had initially converted to a form of Christianity known as Arianism. In Arianism, Christ was subordinate to God the Father. At the Church Councils of the fourth and fifth centuries—at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon—Arianism and certain other Christological variants which had arisen in sympathy with or in reaction against it, were found to be heresies. In the 580s, the Visigoths in Spain turned away from Arianism and united with Rome.